Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Dispensational Salvation


Guest Guest

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

So are you not going to answer me?

Perhaps I should just ask you without reference to the verse. How do you believe a person gets to Heaven? Are there ways outside of calling on Christ? Do you believe God has "granted" some people salvation without the need to repent and call on Him?

At least tell me your age when you got saved. That isn't your testimony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Pray tell, answer what? much ado about nothing kevin. How do you take a simple explanation of John 10:27,28 and turn it into a discussion of how do you know you're saved? Of course we have to repent. Did you read my[b] previous posts concerning God granting [/b]repentance? Please read (Acts 5:30,31; 11:17; 2 Tim. 2:24-26). I was saved when I was 12. And as I said, there are some private matters that are best kept private. Instead of people sticking their noses in other peoples private matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I wouldn't be so quick in dismissing dispensational salvation as heresy.

If the OT, NT, trib and millennial saints are ALL saved in the same way then you have to SPIRITUALIZE many verses that appear to teach salvation by faith plus works and loss of salvation.

The Bible says to 'Rightly DIVIDE the word of God'.

I have always struggled with those verses which seem to teach the necessity of works eg Rom 2 and Jas 2 and I have never been satisfied by what the commentaries have had to say.

I am currently studying this in great detail and will make further comments in due course.

Samer, please don't call this 'heresy'. Unfortunately just like the Catholics many Baptists hang on to traditions handed down by Biblical scholars without questioning what the Bible is really saying.

Doc H

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Doc, I will agree with Samer that it is pure heresy. You struggle with a couple passages that seem to indicate a loss of salvation. What do you do with the hundreds of verses that say that you can never lose your salvation. I learned a long time ago that you never build a doctrine on a couple verses, but the whole of Scripture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

[quote="Doc H"]
I wouldn't be so quick in dismissing dispensational salvation as heresy.

If the OT, NT, trib and millennial saints are ALL saved in the same way then you have to SPIRITUALIZE many verses that appear to teach salvation by faith plus works and loss of salvation.

The Bible says to 'Rightly DIVIDE the word of God'.

I have always struggled with those verses which seem to teach the necessity of works eg Rom 2 and Jas 2 and I have never been satisfied by what the commentaries have had to say.

I am currently studying this in great detail and will make further comments in due course.

Samer, please don't call this 'heresy'. Unfortunately just like the Catholics many Baptists hang on to traditions handed down by Biblical scholars without questioning what the Bible is really saying.

Doc H
[/quote]

What the dispensational-salvation folks end up doing is cutting the Bible every which way to classify away the verses they can't explain. They do it in the guise of "rightly dividing the word of truth," but it seems to me the whole system is opposed to studying. They split the book of Acts every which way, and they will even say David was an exception. There's nothing consistent about it at all, and it lends to every man's interpretation of how one was saved when.

[i]And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.[/i]

Paul and James both quote this. Paul said Abraham was justified by faith, and James said Paul was justified by works. Which is it? "Rightly dividing" doesn't help you here, because they're both talking about the same person, and say different things.

As far as me calling it a heresy, I don't mean to say one can't believe it and still be saved. But I [b]do[/b] believe it's contrary to the word of God, and what is a heresy, if not that?

Grace through faith is tradition? No, no.

I stand by Romans 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

[quote="Samer"]
[quote="Doc H"]I wouldn't be so quick in dismissing dispensational salvation as heresy.

If the OT, NT, trib and millennial saints are ALL saved in the same way then you have to SPIRITUALIZE many verses that appear to teach salvation by faith plus works and loss of salvation.

The Bible says to 'Rightly DIVIDE the word of God'.

I have always struggled with those verses which seem to teach the necessity of works eg Rom 2 and Jas 2 and I have never been satisfied by what the commentaries have had to say.

I am currently studying this in great detail and will make further comments in due course.

Samer, please don't call this 'heresy'. Unfortunately just like the Catholics many Baptists hang on to traditions handed down by Biblical scholars without questioning what the Bible is really saying.

Doc H
[/quote]

What the dispensational-salvation folks end up doing is cutting the Bible every which way to classify away the verses they can't explain. They do it in the guise of "rightly dividing the word of truth," but it seems to me the whole system is opposed to studying. They split the book of Acts every which way, and they will even say David was an exception. There's nothing consistent about it at all, and it lends to every man's interpretation of how one was saved when.

[i]And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.[/i]

Paul and James both quote this. Paul said Abraham was justified by faith, and James said Paul was justified by works. Which is it? "Rightly dividing" doesn't help you here, because they're both talking about the same person, and say different things.

As far as me calling it a heresy, I don't mean to say one can't believe it and still be saved. But I [b]do[/b] believe it's contrary to the word of God, and what is a heresy, if not that?

Grace through faith is tradition? No, no.

I stand by Romans 4.[/quote]

Samer,

Thanks for not classifying me as a heretic or unsaved.

I of course believe that I was saved by grace ALONE through faith ALONE by Christ ALONE.

Doc H

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

[quote="Pastorj"]
Doc, I will agree with Samer that it is pure heresy. You struggle with a couple passages that seem to indicate a loss of salvation. What do you do with the hundreds of verses that say that you can never lose your salvation. I learned a long time ago that you never build a doctrine on a couple verses, but the whole of Scripture.
[/quote]

But that's just it, it's not just a couple of verses. I believe in OSAS and have been debating others on another forum who believe you can lose your salvation. They bring up many verses from the OT and NT not just one or two.

Just something to think about is the gospel that Paul defended in Galations 1 the same as the everlasting gospel mentioned in Revelation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Genesis 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

In some sense, they did anticipate the Messiah, but the faith that saved them wasn't always based on the same level of understanding.


I have to ask again.

Can someone show me an OT saved person that was saved by trusting the finished work of Jesus Christ?

What you are doing is reading the NT back into the Old.


Genesis 22 is a type and a wonderful type, but can you honestly say that Abraham meant Christ when he said what he said in chapter 22? Or is it not more honest to say that in the context he meant a lamb, as in a lamb?

How do you explain Luke 24 vs. 25-27 or 1 Peter 1 vs. 10-12, Matthew 16:21-22, Luke 9:43-45 and Luke 24:1-9 "and they REMEMBERED his words". Why go to a tomb looking for a Saviour that you were "looking forward to"?

To be honest, we must reject the idea that men looked forward to the cross in the OT.

I can find no examples of it anywhere in the scriptures.

God bless,

Calvary
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You guys act like Jesus didn't even exist before the NT! He was there from the very beginning.

I am not "up" on what all of this dispensational stuff means, I do not have all of your textbooks that teach this stuff. All I have is my KJV and I do know that Jesus has always been there, since the beginning of time, if not sooner.

I sort of think God has tried to be close to His people since He created us, but their human understandings have not always been the greatest. So even while He commanded them to make sacrifices and prepare the way for the Messiah, they did not know it, but the Messiah was there all along - not just figuratively, but in a very real and physical sense. Who was the Fourth Man in the fire, after all? Jesus was there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Hi Janet,

Don't get ahead of me on this. I am not trying to suggest the Jesus was not pre-existent.

All I am saying is that the teaching that "all men looked forward to the cross" is a non Biblical idea.

The idea that men in the OT "dispensation" (a very Biblical word in fact) were saved in the same manner as a Christian in the Body of Christ is simply not true.

For one thing, if they were, and I say if, why did they not go to heaven as the believer did today?

Exactly, Christ hadn't died as of yet. So if the sacrifice had not been payed, how could the way be opened? (Read the book of Hebrews!)


To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, says the NT.

The OT has no such idea at all.


I think that most of the confusion comes from equating the OT hope as being the same hope that you and I have.

No OT saint was looking forward to going to heaven. We are.
No OT saint was sealed by the Holy Spirit. We are.
No OT saint was eternally secure. We are.
No OT saint went directly to heaven upon departing this earthly tabernacle. We do.
No OT saint had Christ indwelling him. We do.
No OT saint was in the church which is His body. We are.

Those are enough difference for me to take into consideration that OT salvation is not NT salvation.

Now, slow down and read that again. I did NOT say that the blood of Christ was not the efficacious medium for said salvation. :D

God bless,

Calvary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...